Annotate based on these instructions, tell me what to annotate and provide a comment for each annotation: Provide enough comments to indicate you read the entire article and were thoughtful about it. Feeling unsure what to say? Look over the slides from Week 1 "How to read a scientific article," and consider addressing these topics: 1) The major research question(s) explored. 2) What prior research was done? What research gaps does the author intend to fulfill? 3) What are their hypotheses? 4) How does the author address these gaps (i.e., methods)? 5) What's the main finding of each figure? 6) If you can choose, what is the ONE piece of data that was most important or directly addressing the question? 7) Do the author's interpretations match the evidence? (It's OK to disagree!) 8) Any critiques or further comments on the paper.

Participants Originally, 60 adults were recruited to participate in our study, but due to scheduling difficulties, 55 completed the experiment in full (attending a minimum of three sessions, defined later). To ensure data distribution, we are here only reporting data from 54 participants (as participants were assigned in three groups, see details below). These 54 participants were between the ages of 18 to 39 years old (age M = 22.9, SD = 1.69) and all recruited from the following 5 universities in greater Boston area: MIT (14F, 5M), Wellesley (18F), Harvard (1N/A, 7M, 2 Non-Binary), Tufts (5M), and Northeastern (2M) (Figure 3). 35 participants reported pursuing undergraduate studies and 14 postgraduate studies. 6 participants either finished their studies with MSc or PhD degrees, and were currently working at the universities as post-docs (2), research scientists (2), software engineers (2) (Figure 2). 32 participants indicated their gender as female, 19 - male, 2 - non-binary and 1 participant preferred not to provide this information. Figure 2 and Figure 3 summarize the background of the participants. Highest Degree